• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It looks like pay to publish is not very popular among scientists:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations

"Many scientists have decried the rise of "predatory" journals—open-access publications that charge authors to publish but offer little or no peer review or other quality controls and use aggressive marketing tactics. Scholars have worried that the resulting articles have contaminated the literature with mediocre, flawed, or intentionally misleading findings. But a new study finds that 60% of articles published in a sample of "predatory journals" attracted not a single citation over a 5-year period. And the articles that received citations did so at a rate much lower than papers in conventional peer-reviewed journals."

I wish that I could read the full text. But it appears that scientists that rely on open access are not taken seriously by other scientists. Sort of like how paying for sex with a prostitute does not earn a man much respect with his fellow men.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations

"Many scientists have decried the rise of "predatory" journals—open-access publications that charge authors to publish but offer little or no peer review or other quality controls and use aggressive marketing tactics. Scholars have worried that the resulting articles have contaminated the literature with mediocre, flawed, or intentionally misleading findings. But a new study finds that 60% of articles published in a sample of "predatory journals" attracted not a single citation over a 5-year period. And the articles that received citations did so at a rate much lower than papers in conventional peer-reviewed journals."

I wish that I could read the full text. But it appears that scientists that rely on open access are not taken seriously by other scientists. Sort of like how paying for sex with a prostitute does not earn a man much respect with his fellow men.
Just what one would have hoped and expected.

"Vanity publishing" has been with us for a while. That is what these journals offer.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The entire article isn't that long so you aren't missing much by not having access, but there are a few noteworthy things I'll add.

In terms of methodology, the authors had to use Google Scholar to count citations because most predatory journals are not listed in the more widely used citations databases like Scopus. This in of itself may explain the low rate of citations for predatory journals. For contrast, while 60% of predatory journal articles attracted no citations, they also found 9% of peer-reviewed journals attracted no citations.

They also comment a bit about the limits of the study. This only looks at other journals but not sources of information more relevant to the general public, like social media. That's a direction they suggest for future research. The real danger in predatory journals is not so much the academics - who by and large are discerning enough to know better - but with non-experts and the general public who are not.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The entire article isn't that long so you aren't missing much by not having access, but there are a few noteworthy things I'll add.

In terms of methodology, the authors had to use Google Scholar to count citations because most predatory journals are not listed in the more widely used citations databases like Scopus. This in of itself may explain the low rate of citations for predatory journals. For contrast, while 60% of predatory journal articles attracted no citations, they also found 9% of peer-reviewed journals attracted no citations.

They also comment a bit about the limits of the study. This only looks at other journals but not sources of information more relevant to the general public, like social media. That's a direction they suggest for future research. The real danger in predatory journals is not so much the academics - who by and large are discerning enough to know better - but with non-experts and the general public who are not.
Indeed. It has a not been unknown for people (OK, cranks ;)) on these forums to cite articles from these predatory journals, thinking they show proper scientific work.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The entire article isn't that long so you aren't missing much by not having access, but there are a few noteworthy things I'll add.

In terms of methodology, the authors had to use Google Scholar to count citations because most predatory journals are not listed in the more widely used citations databases like Scopus. This in of itself may explain the low rate of citations for predatory journals. For contrast, while 60% of predatory journal articles attracted no citations, they also found 9% of peer-reviewed journals attracted no citations.

They also comment a bit about the limits of the study. This only looks at other journals but not sources of information more relevant to the general public, like social media. That's a direction they suggest for future research. The real danger in predatory journals is not so much the academics - who by and large are discerning enough to know better - but with non-experts and the general public who are not.
I would not expect every peer reviewed article to be a gem. But there is a heck of difference between 9% with no citations and 60%. And like many metastudies there are limitations to this one. But thank you for the synopsis.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Another thing that occurs to me is that it's important to remember that citing a work can mean many things. A citation for a source doesn't mean supporting that source or its conclusions. Sometimes you cite things because you want to highlight the historical chronologies of research or current directions in research, which can include findings that are known to be inaccurate or outdated. It doesn't appear the study looked that closely at why a particular work was cited and that would take an awful lot more time.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Indeed. It has a not been unknown for people (OK, cranks ;)) on these forums to cite articles from these predatory journals, thinking they show proper scientific work.

If there was one change in peer reviewed article I wish that they would all become open source after a limited period of time. How long is an article "fresh"? In other words how long should an article be protected so that the journal will be able to earn some money from subscriptions? Is two years to short of a period of time? For amateurs it would be nice if we could link at least relatively recent articles. The general public is always going to be a few years behind the cutting edge of science at any rate.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations

"Many scientists have decried the rise of "predatory" journals—open-access publications that charge authors to publish but offer little or no peer review or other quality controls and use aggressive marketing tactics. Scholars have worried that the resulting articles have contaminated the literature with mediocre, flawed, or intentionally misleading findings. But a new study finds that 60% of articles published in a sample of "predatory journals" attracted not a single citation over a 5-year period. And the articles that received citations did so at a rate much lower than papers in conventional peer-reviewed journals."

I wish that I could read the full text. But it appears that scientists that rely on open access are not taken seriously by other scientists. Sort of like how paying for sex with a prostitute does not earn a man much respect with his fellow men.
Thank goodness, as well as the sense of integrity in the scientific community.

tenor.gif
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-1-9_17-3-4.jpeg
    upload_2020-1-9_17-3-4.jpeg
    48.8 KB · Views: 0

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Given the scandals of the past few years in "high quality" journal articles, we don't need Gresham's law operating in scientific research.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations

"Many scientists have decried the rise of "predatory" journals—open-access publications that charge authors to publish but offer little or no peer review or other quality controls and use aggressive marketing tactics. Scholars have worried that the resulting articles have contaminated the literature with mediocre, flawed, or intentionally misleading findings. But a new study finds that 60% of articles published in a sample of "predatory journals" attracted not a single citation over a 5-year period. And the articles that received citations did so at a rate much lower than papers in conventional peer-reviewed journals."

I wish that I could read the full text. But it appears that scientists that rely on open access are not taken seriously by other scientists. Sort of like how paying for sex with a prostitute does not earn a man much respect with his fellow men.


**Edited to updated pricing information** Peer J charges an academic researcher just $1,095 for publishing a single article, and only $399 for a life-time membership that'd get one of the researcher's articles published during any given year for free in the Peer J peer-reviewed open-access journal, which primarily focuses on biology research.

PeerJ

Seventy-three percent of scientific research articles published by PeerJ have received at least 1 citation in 2018.

PeerJ Impact Factor 2018-19 | Trend, Prediction & Ranking

PeerJ.sm_.jpg
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Peer J charges academic researchers just $99 to get their research articles published in the PeerJ peer-reviewed and open-access journal. Researchers will only have to pay a one-time fee of $259 to acquire lifetime publishing privileges in this journal, which primarily focuses on biology research.

PeerJ

Seventy-three percent of scientific research articles published by PeerJ have received at least 1 citation in 2018.

PeerJ Impact Factor 2018-19 | Trend, Prediction & Ranking

PeerJ.sm_.jpg
Try to find a valid site that confirms this.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I was amazed women voted for someone belittling women in such a way

From the polling I've looked at, people support the policy, not the man.
Trump is a necessary evil in order to get their policy preference enacted.

Ah... probably not the thread to derail into a political discussion. :)
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
No, it's VERY unpopular among scientists who are on the tenure track or are concerned about having a professional reputation. It isn't a plus in job-hunting, nor in promotion, nor in getting other scientists to take you seriously.

Seventy-three percent of scientific research articles published by PeerJ have received at least 1 citation in 2018.

This would not be convincing to a prospective employer or promotion committee, even if you had managed to get published in one of the top journals. Being published in PeerJ would suggest that your scholarship and research is not of sufficient quality to get into higher-rated journals.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
i was talking about the claimed citation rate.

I'm very sorry I'd mentioned J Peer's publication rates before they'd become widely accepted and their publishing rates increased accordingly.

What is the citation distribution for PeerJ articles?

That of course depends on the time frame looked at, however taking the typical time frame of two years then the typical citation distribution is:

  • 90th percentile: 18.6 citations
  • 75th percentile: 10 citations
  • 50th percentile (median): 5 citations
  • 25th percentile: 2 citations
PeerJ - FAQ
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
No, it's VERY unpopular among scientists who are on the tenure track or are concerned about having a professional reputation. It isn't a plus in job-hunting, nor in promotion, nor in getting other scientists to take you seriously.

This would not be convincing to a prospective employer or promotion committee, even if you had managed to get published in one of the top journals. Being published in PeerJ would suggest that your scholarship and research is not of sufficient quality to get into higher-rated journals.

"Global readership. PeerJ articles are viewed and downloaded by millions of readers in hundreds of countries. 19.5M views and downloads. 500,000 monthly readers." PeerJ - Broad audience

"Impact Factor. PeerJ's 2016 Impact Factor is 2.2 (see Journal Citation Reports). Whilst we appreciate the importance still placed on the Impact Factor by many elements of the academic community, we believe that individual research articles are best assessed on their own merits, rather than on an aggregate citation count."

PeerJ - Indexing and Impact Factor
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm very sorry I'd mentioned J Peer's publication rates before they'd become widely accepted and their publishing rates increased accordingly.


What is the citation distribution for PeerJ articles?

That of course depends on the time frame looked at, however taking the typical time frame of two years then the typical citation distribution is:

  • 90th percentile: 18.6 citations
  • 75th percentile: 10 citations
  • 50th percentile (median): 5 citations
  • 25th percentile: 2 citations
PeerJ - FAQ
You are using PeerJ to report on PeerJ. Do you not see a problem with this?
 
Top